In the November 29 staff meeting, it was decided that signatures may now be a maximum of 600 pixels wide and 220 pixels high. This new height limit was introduced for the sake of users who have 600 × 200 image signatures, but also want a line of text (such as a link to their Tumblr or something). While there technically isn't anything keeping you from using those extra 20 pixels height for a taller image, it's not why we introduced the change, so if that becomes the most common use of the new limit, we might go back to the old 600 × 200 limit. It should also be noted that we will eventually (the date hasn't been decided) be implementing a coding change that will lead to oversized signatures being automatically cropped. As such, if you don't want the guy in your 300-pixel-tall signature to suddenly start doing his best St. Aphrodisius impression, you would do well to replace your signature with one that fits the size limit before the coding is introduced.

As a clarification, having multiple images that are 600 × 220 each will not work; you'll just get one of them cropped once the new coding is in place. The size limit refers to the entirety of your signature put together, not each item in your signature individually.

The restrictions on file size have also been changed as of February 14. Signatures may now be up to 500kb in size.

Gah. That wasn't brought up in the meeting. I would assume the sum, if only because applying it to individual images would open the door for signatures to have a huge file size despite each individual component meeting the restrictions. It's the same principle as users not being allowed to have multiple 600 × 220 images in their signatures.

My signature doesn't seem to be showing?? I just joined the forum and I've set one. How long does it take?

I'm sorry I can't give you specifics but I know why it is.

It's an anti-bot measure. Many bots would make a new account and fill their signatures with all kind of obscene and dangerous links. However bots didn't normally stick around to post any more. Therefore by disabling signatures of new members, bots can't show their links well.

Made by Chesu+Zombee

You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.

My signature doesn't seem to be showing?? I just joined the forum and I've set one. How long does it take?

I'm sorry I can't give you specifics but I know why it is.

It's an anti-bot measure. Many bots would make a new account and fill their signatures with all kind of obscene and dangerous links. However bots didn't normally stick around to post any more. Therefore by disabling signatures of new members, bots can't show their links well.

Pretty much this. I believe after a set number of posts the signature is "unlocked" if you will.

Question: Why does it matter if people use the new limits for 600x220 signatures instead of 600x200 signatures + line of text? As long as the file size is within 200 kb, it would take up the same space on the screen and use up just as much bandwidth, right? So what's the difference?

My memory is that the larger size was only proposed because of concerns about how using code to enforce the 600 × 200 limit would inconvenience users who had a 600 × 200 image in their signature plus a line of text. Thus, an additional 20 pixels was added to the height limit out of concern for users who wanted to have text and keep a 600 × 200 image. If people are going to just use those extra 20 pixels for taller images, then the whole discussion was pointless.

My memory is that the larger size was only proposed because of concerns about how using code to enforce the 600 × 200 limit would inconvenience users who had a 600 × 200 image in their signature plus a line of text. Thus, an additional 20 pixels was added to the height limit out of concern for users who wanted to have text and keep a 600 × 200 image. If people are going to just use those extra 20 pixels for taller images, then the whole discussion was pointless.

I can understand where you're coming from, but I have to agree with henke37 here. It seems weird to limit people in this way when there are already limits in place. It's a bit double, and perhaps even confusing.The reason there are limits on signatures are two-fold, I imagine. One, so bandwidth doesn't get eaten up. Two, so people don't have their screens completely filled with signatures. As long as the two limits keep this in check, nothing else really matters, right?

Admittedly, I was against expanding the height limit. My openness to it was only because of the possible inconvenience of users having to get new images for their signatures in order to avoid having text cut off. Essentially, if that's not the purpose this policy change ends up serving, I'm going to feel as though I was tricked into backing down on the issue. I can't say for certain whether or not I'd advocate a return to the old limit if people start using 600 × 220 images. The possibility is there, though.

Great, now the signatures look annoying. Heck, they look much shorter than it was before, and then it was pushed to the left if it crosses the horizontical border. I was flustered to even add something new to my signature to prevent it look embarrassing.

Great, now the signatures look annoying. Heck, they look much shorter than it was before, and then it was pushed to the left if it crosses the horizontical border. I was flustered to even add something new to my signature to prevent it look embarrassing.

You can always preview your signature to see if it adds the horizontal scrolling bar or not

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum